Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

I am totally against our boots on Afghan soil.Spl forces perhaps,not regs. Every nation that has warred there has got bogged down ,suffered heavy casualties and paid an enormous sum as well.US trillions. We don't have that kind of money.It's better to give the Afghan govt. weapons,training and some aid, We had an earlier deal where Russia provided the weaponry and we paid for it.Closer intel relationship and use of Afghan intel in covert ops in Pak reqd.

It is far better that our regular troops fight to protect Indian soil,Indian lives and repel adventurous invaders like the Chinese and Pakis.WE need them securing our borders esp. at this juncture where we may have to fight on "2.5 fronts".

Iran. Relationship vital to outflank Pak. Shiite Iran is a natural enemy of Pak. We can retain the relationship by refusing to kowtow to US demands as if they are unwilling to sanction Pak,why should we suffer? Our demand should be v.v.clear.Pak declared a terrorist state,total sanctions ,arms,aid,banks,individuals,etc.What the Saudis are doing to Qatar. That might make a difference,except that Iran is not hurting us whatsoever,while Pak is hurting the US too.

We are circumventing US ploys to penalise Russia in Indo_Ru deals,by getting a govermental guarantee,not bank guarantees,as the US has sanctions Ru banks. Same strategy to be used with deals with Iran.

As I had before the Modi Trump meeting, we'll be fortunate to get away with a few scratches on our face but that will be the end of it. H1B visa issue is one such thorn but it is nothing that can be resolved over time.

We are in okay shape...vis a vis the US, regardless of what losers like McCain say in Pakiland. One more reason why Trump as president is turning out to be better than that banshee........

Philip wrote:I am totally against our boots on Afghan soil.Spl forces perhaps,not regs. Every nation that has warred there has got bogged down ,suffered heavy casualties and paid an enormous sum as well.US trillions. We don't have that kind of money.It's better to give the Afghan govt. weapons,training and some aid, We had an earlier deal where Russia provided the weaponry and we paid for it.Closer intel relationship and use of Afghan intel in covert ops in Pak reqd.

It is far better that our regular troops fight to protect Indian soil,Indian lives and repel adventurous invaders like the Chinese and Pakis.WE need them securing our borders esp. at this juncture where we may have to fight on "2.5 fronts".

Iran. Relationship vital to outflank Pak. Shiite Iran is a natural enemy of Pak. We can retain the relationship by refusing to kowtow to US demands as if they are unwilling to sanction Pak,why should we suffer? Our demand should be v.v.clear.Pak declared a terrorist state,total sanctions ,arms,aid,banks,individuals,etc.What the Saudis are doing to Qatar. That might make a difference,except that Iran is not hurting us whatsoever,while Pak is hurting the US too.

We are circumventing US ploys to penalise Russia in Indo_Ru deals,by getting a govermental guarantee,not bank guarantees,as the US has sanctions Ru banks. Same strategy to be used with deals with Iran.

i would gradually start to discount iran and pull away from these ungrateful aholes.

they seem to have a false and much hyped up civilizational superiority complex vis a vis the Indians who they look down upon.

The fact that we defied US sanctions for them means little to them

shia, sunni is ok but when push comes to shove, its muslim against all and we should not forget this and romanticize ourselves into a false sense of safety.

to them we are the kafirs.

nothing more than kafirs with money and the market for their extremely sour and low-grade oil.

they seem to have a false and much hyped up civilizational superiority complex vis a vis the Indians who they look down upon.

Notice how Iranis never fail to mention their great Persian civilisation, including their leaders.

When was the last time a European or Chinese or Indian leader did the same in self reference. It would be contemptible but they need to be indulged, like children. And no, Iran has never produced anything of consequence to global cultural history. (Name one).

I demonstrated some small measure of competence once, upon which a semiliterate Lebanese Muslim female asked me if I was Egyptian/Arab whatever. My response was 'Indian', the poor semiliterate was bemused and said 'essentially you must be Muslim'.

No I'm afraid not and I thank the 303 million devatas individually for the favour.

sanjaykumar wrote:That as opinion is widespread in the wastes of the 'Middle East'.

I demonstrated some small measure of competence once, upon which a semiliterate Lebanese Muslim female asked me if I was Egyptian/Arab whatever. My response was 'Indian', the poor semiliterate was bemused and said essentially 'you must be Muslim'.

No I'm afraid not and I thank the 303 million devatas individually for the favour.

sanjaykumar wrote:they seem to have a false and much hyped up civilizational superiority complex vis a vis the Indians who they look down upon.

Notice how Iranis never fail to mention their great Persian civilisation, including their leaders.

When was the last time a European or Chinese or Indian leader did the same in self reference. It would be contemptible but they need to be indulged, like children. And no, Iran has never produced anything of consequence to global cultural history. (Name one).

Iranians probably have the most obvious inferiority complex for an 'old civilization'. Probably something to do with the fact that despite their hallmark in centralized rulerships, Iran has displayed a shocking ability to totally and utterly lose to far inferior adversaries, in terms of resources and manpower at their disposal. true, Alexander, Rashidun Caliphate (Arabs), etc had technological supriority over the Iranians, but its still the 'technological & manpower equivalent' of Switzerland showing up and beating the snot out of Brazil. they suffer from inferiority complex due to this and the fact that ever since Arabs began to spread Islam in central Asia, there has been no true Persian dynasty ever. they've been thoroughly dominated by Iranicized turks- from Seljuks, GhaznavidsTimurids, Saffarids and Samanids to even the Safavids, Qajar, Afsharids and Zand, they were ALL ethnic turks.

PS: I agree Iran's contribution to world culture, technology and philosophy are negligible. But they were the first (under Achaemenid empire) to come up with the true concept of 'provinces, provincial rulers,etc' which became the model of dividing empires administratively, even today.

Then where did Shah Pahlavi get his noor e arya title? (I kid you not).

I think Pahlevi were possibly the first non-turki/non-Arab/non-Mongol rulers of entire Iran (there were a few local dynasties that were vassals under the arabs/mongols-like in Mazarandan) history of Iran since the Sassanids. But yes, every single dynasty to rule over entire Iran, since Sassanids, up to Pahlevi (only ones i am not sure of) were Turks. Nader shah was ethnic turk. Safavids were turks. Qajar, Zand, timurid, Seljuk, Samanids- were all turks.

Like Pakis, I think Iranians too are a confused nation torn between Islamic, Shia and Persian identity all existing simultaneously while all 3 of them are at conflict with one another or Islamic Arab identity.On top the current regime which is against the inherent nature of Abdul Iranian adds to the internal conflict.

There's hardly any modern country that is not confused about identities. Maybe the Russians, maybe the Chinese, maybe the Australians. Maybe a couple more countries like Japan or Switzerland. The US has a plenty strong inner jihad waging to figure out what it wants to be.

This is a definite advancement in Indo-US relations,especially in the context of ongoing Chinese aggro . in the mountains and the IOR.The sooner the deal is sealed and the SGs start arriving,the better it will be.One important factor to also note is that we're not ttoally dependent upon the US for UAV/UCAVs,as Israel has been supplying us with the same for a long time.The SGs will complement the inventory of Israeli systems and any desi systems that we might finally induct.

US offer of Sea Guardian drones to India signals converging strategic interestsRhetorical ambitions must be translated into tangible progress and both countries must work more closely on mutually beneficial efforts

OPINION Updated: Jul 05, 2017 Jon SchausAn MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted drone aircraft performs aerial manoeuvres. (File photo for representative purposes)(REUTERS)Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Washington last week was clearly an effort by both Modi and United States President Donald Trump to demonstrate that India-US ties remain strong and continue to deepen. The repeated embraces — three by most counts — serve as a visual reminder the continued closeness between the two countries.

The joint statement presents a range of issues where India and the US will work more closely.One item stood out as particularly important: The US “offered for India’s consideration the sale of Sea Guardian Unmanned Aerial Systems.” This is significant for three reasons.

From submarines to warships: How Chinese navy is expanding its footprint in Indian OceanFirst, if India and the US are able to reach an agreement on a deal for this type of an unmanned aerial system (UAS), it could mark the first transfer by the US of such a system to a non-ally country. The Sea Guardian, a large payload, long-endurance UAS platform is a variant of the Predator UAS system used by the US military and department of homeland security. The unarmed Sea Guardian is designed to provide advanced surveillance capability for maritime and littoral missions — an increasingly important mission for India as it seeks to play a larger role in securing the sea lines of communication in the Indian Ocean.

Second, in announcing this offer to India, Trump effectively signalled that the US has staked out a new policy position in India’s favour regarding potential constraints imposed under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This voluntary arms control agreement calls for a “strong presumption of denial”, for transfers of large UAS to other member-states. The regime, of which both India and the US are members, was established to limit the proliferation of missile technology (including UAS) that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. The Sea Guardian falls into the most tightly constrained Category I under MTCR.

While there are good arguments for decoupling UAS from the MTCR, it is not clear that US policymakers has resolved that debate for exports globally, nor has the discussion been broached in a significant way across the range of the MTCR member-countries. This significant step in India’s favour should not be overlooked.

Third, in offering India Sea Guardians, the US recognises that India is a maritime partner and the interests of both nations are aligning. Should India choose the Sea Guardian for its maritime surveillance missions, it would enable even greater cooperation.

As India and the US work to deepen bilateral ties, a necessary condition will be aligned — or at least more closely aligning — interests. Over the past two Indian administrations, and now on to the third consecutive US presidential administration, we are seeing that.

Equally important, however, will be continuing to find concrete areas of cooperation where rhetorical ambitions are translated into tangible progress and both countries working more closely together on mutually beneficial efforts. In offering a large unmanned maritime patrol aircraft, the two leaders have achieved just that.

John Schaus is fellow, International Security Programme, Center for Strategic and International Studies

^^^+ sensors etc - ( Guardians are equipped with marine search radar, electro-optical infrared optimized for maritime etc .. but their land versions are not really that different ..some are used in US for both purposes - jointly with US coast-guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection covering, for example, Florida and Texas.

http://zeenews.india.com/india/amid-chi ... 21817.htmlAmid China's increasing presence in Indian Ocean, India, US, Japan to begin Malabar exercise FridayIndia, Japan and the US are to deploy their front-line warships, submarines and aircraft for the mega Malabar naval exercise.Chennai: Amid China's increasing presence in the Indian Ocean, India, Japan and the US are to deploy their front-line warships, submarines and aircraft for the mega Malabar naval exercise that kicks off in the Bay of Bengal from Friday with a focus on anti-submarine warfare.The July 7-17 exercise comes amid reports of Chinese warships in the Indian Ocean Region in the name of anti-piracy operations, and Beijing's aggressive posturing in the South China Sea.Malabar is a joint exercise between India and US, which now has Japan as a permanent partner. Australia wanted to participate as an observer this year but was not included, following reservations by China. With focus on anti-submarine warfare, the exercise will see Maritime Patrol and Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft P8-I from India and P-8A Poseidon aircraft from the US work together.The front-line ships set to participate in the exercise that has evoked sharp reactions from China in the past include India's aircraft carrier - the 45,400 tonne INS Vikramaditya - a modified Russian Kiev-class aircraft carrier, and the American 100,020 tonne super carrier USS Nimitz that can carry 90 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters.......

Ramana,SGs are maritime versions of the Predator,long endurance,large payload,etc. One is sure that it can also attack land targets-all reqd, is for the target spotting by sats,etc., data transferred to the SG and boom! There would be no point in acquiring it like puppets on a string. We may have some inspections to see that the tech. hasn't been secretly tampered with.transferred to another country for instance.

However,the del with Israel,thus far our most important supplier of UAV/UCAVs ,naval Herons,etc.,Mr. M must've asked for Heron TP UCAVs,with which we'll be able to carry out strikes against terror land targets.

After India became a part of Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 2016, the road to acquire the drones was cleared. The drone was at display at the AeroIndia show in Bengaluru in February.Also called as Eitan drug, the Heron TP-armed drones, manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries, can help India in cross-border strikes with less potential damage to the personnel. The drones are also capable of detecting, tracking and taking down targets with air to ground missiles.According to the website of Israel Aerospace Industries, Heron-TP is an advanced, Medium Altutude Long Endurnace (MALE) drone that can fly upto an altitude of 45,000 feet. The drone has an all-weather capablity making it perfect for combat at all times. It has an endurance of over 30 hours and can usually carry a payload of not more than 1,000 kgs. The drone is also in compliant with the ATOL (Automatic Taxi-Takeoff-Landing) system and is also compatible with NATO standards.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ump-215339How China Misread Donald TrumpThere are some problems that “good chemistry” just can’t solve. At a surprisingly cheerful summit meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April, Chinese President Xi Jinping seemed to find Donald Trump’s sweet spot. Xi said they “cemented their mutual trust”; Trump called Xi a “terrific person” and hailed their “good chemistry together,” predicting that “lots of potentially bad problems will go away.”But one of those bad problems isn’t going anywhere, and as a result, Trump’s view of China is quickly turning sour. The reason for his dwindling patience is Beijing’s failure to rein in North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s nuclear program and escalating series of missile tests, the latest being an intercontinental ballistic missile that might someday carry a nuclear payload that could hit the continental United States. “Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday. “So much for China working with us - but we had to give it a try!”China seems not to have appreciated how fortunate it was that Trump’s China policy has focused overwhelmingly on North Korea, rather than on its unfair trade and investment policies and its aggressive military expansion in the Asia-Pacific. For China’s interests, this has meant free rein on most other issues of concern—an extraordinary opportunity that it has squandered by not responding more effectively to what Trump wanted on this single front. Now, Trump is ratcheting up the pressure on China on multiple fronts at once.Trump seems rightly to have determined that China isn’t doing enough on North Korea.Monday’s missile test came months after the president tweeted that a North Korean ICBM “won’t happen” on his watch. North Korea is destabilizing Asia and is now posing a pressing security threat to the U.S. itself. China has more leverage and must do more. So the Trump administration has rolled out various new measures that Beijing has deplored: “secondary sanctions” on a Chinese bank, shipping company and two company officials for involvement in money laundering to aid North Korea; a new $1.42 billion arms sale to Taiwan; more assertive naval operations in the South China Sea; and the high-level release of a State Department report accusing China of being one of the worst-offending countries on human trafficking.The Chinese miscalculated with Trump in two ways related to North Korea. First, China failed to take significant concrete steps for which Trump could claim credit. China’s announced suspension of coal imports from North Korea, a substantial punishment of North Korea, took place before the Mar-a-Lago summit and in response to United Nations resolutions—and this is a president who needs to be able to take personal credit for concrete things.On this score, what should China have done, and would that have made a difference? Let’s simply take the case of the sanctions the U.S. has just imposed on two Chinese entities for pro-North Korean money laundering. We must assume China was informed about the specific U.S. concerns related to these institutions and given information to support those concerns. So informed, China should have stepped up and gone after those companies itself.The two entities are small, so China would not have lost face by cracking down on them. Most important, going after them would not have brought into play China’s most fundamental strategic concern regarding North Korea: that tightening the screws enough to freeze its nuclear program and bring it to the bargaining table would jeopardize the survival of what Beijing views as a buffer state. The unusual step of going after some Chinese nationals for money laundering that helps finance North Korea would have responded to Trump’s overtures at little cost to China and demonstrated that China was prepared to put new pressure on the North Korean regime.The second Chinese miscalculation was to assume that Trump would be patient in waiting for concrete steps and results from China on North Korea. One of China’s finest international relations scholars, Professor Shi Yinhong, was quoted the other day as saying, “The latest situation [has] illustrated that Trump is a leader without patience.” Indeed. But this lesson should have been learned long ago. Not only has Trump said repeatedly that “the era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed”—he is characteristically an impatient person. Chinese diplomats are exquisitely skilled in tactics of delay, but the more valuable skill in dealing with Trump is managing his impatience.So Beijing misread Trump. But since North Korea’s July 4 missile test prompted a Trump tweet still holding out the prospect that China would make a “heavy move” on Pyongyang, perhaps Beijing will see an opportunity to correct its blunder. Trump has repeatedly signaled that his patience with China is wearing thin, yet he appears to have no viable alternative to demanding that Xi bring Kim to heel. The two leaders may have an opportunity to clarify matters on the sidelines of the G-20 meeting in Hamburg....

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ump-215339How China Misread Donald TrumpThere are some problems that “good chemistry” just can’t solve. At a surprisingly cheerful summit meeting at Mar-a-Lago in April, Chinese President Xi Jinping seemed to find Donald Trump’s sweet spot. Xi said they “cemented their mutual trust”; Trump called Xi a “terrific person” and hailed their “good chemistry together,” predicting that “lots of potentially bad problems will go away.”But one of those bad problems isn’t going anywhere, and as a result, Trump’s view of China is quickly turning sour. The reason for his dwindling patience is Beijing’s failure to rein in North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s nuclear program and escalating series of missile tests, the latest being an intercontinental ballistic missile that might someday carry a nuclear payload that could hit the continental United States. “Trade between China and North Korea grew almost 40% in the first quarter,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday. “So much for China working with us - but we had to give it a try!”China seems not to have appreciated how fortunate it was that Trump’s China policy has focused overwhelmingly on North Korea, rather than on its unfair trade and investment policies and its aggressive military expansion in the Asia-Pacific. For China’s interests, this has meant free rein on most other issues of concern—an extraordinary opportunity that it has squandered by not responding more effectively to what Trump wanted on this single front. Now, Trump is ratcheting up the pressure on China on multiple fronts at once.Trump seems rightly to have determined that China isn’t doing enough on North Korea.Monday’s missile test came months after the president tweeted that a North Korean ICBM “won’t happen” on his watch. North Korea is destabilizing Asia and is now posing a pressing security threat to the U.S. itself. China has more leverage and must do more. So the Trump administration has rolled out various new measures that Beijing has deplored: “secondary sanctions” on a Chinese bank, shipping company and two company officials for involvement in money laundering to aid North Korea; a new $1.42 billion arms sale to Taiwan; more assertive naval operations in the South China Sea; and the high-level release of a State Department report accusing China of being one of the worst-offending countries on human trafficking.The Chinese miscalculated with Trump in two ways related to North Korea. First, China failed to take significant concrete steps for which Trump could claim credit. China’s announced suspension of coal imports from North Korea, a substantial punishment of North Korea, took place before the Mar-a-Lago summit and in response to United Nations resolutions—and this is a president who needs to be able to take personal credit for concrete things.On this score, what should China have done, and would that have made a difference? Let’s simply take the case of the sanctions the U.S. has just imposed on two Chinese entities for pro-North Korean money laundering. We must assume China was informed about the specific U.S. concerns related to these institutions and given information to support those concerns. So informed, China should have stepped up and gone after those companies itself.The two entities are small, so China would not have lost face by cracking down on them. Most important, going after them would not have brought into play China’s most fundamental strategic concern regarding North Korea: that tightening the screws enough to freeze its nuclear program and bring it to the bargaining table would jeopardize the survival of what Beijing views as a buffer state. The unusual step of going after some Chinese nationals for money laundering that helps finance North Korea would have responded to Trump’s overtures at little cost to China and demonstrated that China was prepared to put new pressure on the North Korean regime.The second Chinese miscalculation was to assume that Trump would be patient in waiting for concrete steps and results from China on North Korea. One of China’s finest international relations scholars, Professor Shi Yinhong, was quoted the other day as saying, “The latest situation [has] illustrated that Trump is a leader without patience.” Indeed. But this lesson should have been learned long ago. Not only has Trump said repeatedly that “the era of strategic patience with the North Korean regime has failed”—he is characteristically an impatient person. Chinese diplomats are exquisitely skilled in tactics of delay, but the more valuable skill in dealing with Trump is managing his impatience.So Beijing misread Trump. But since North Korea’s July 4 missile test prompted a Trump tweet still holding out the prospect that China would make a “heavy move” on Pyongyang, perhaps Beijing will see an opportunity to correct its blunder. Trump has repeatedly signaled that his patience with China is wearing thin, yet he appears to have no viable alternative to demanding that Xi bring Kim to heel. The two leaders may have an opportunity to clarify matters on the sidelines of the G-20 meeting in Hamburg....

Gautam

The two entities are small, so China would not have lost face by cracking down on them. Most important, going after them would not have brought into play China’s most fundamental strategic concern regarding North Korea: that tightening the screws enough to freeze its nuclear program and bring it to the bargaining table would jeopardize the survival of what Beijing views as a buffer state. The unusual step of going after some Chinese nationals for money laundering that helps finance North Korea would have responded to Trump’s overtures at little cost to China and demonstrated that China was prepared to put new pressure on the North Korean regime.

All rogue regimes like pakis,chinese are same. These rogues need some weak ass buffer state

WASHINGTON — Before arranging a meeting with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer he believed would offer him compromising information about Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr. was informed in an email that the material was part of a Russian government effort to aid his father’s candidacy, according to three people with knowledge of the email.

The email to the younger Mr. Trump was sent by Rob Goldstone, a publicist and former British tabloid reporter who helped broker the June 2016 meeting. In a statement on Sunday, Mr. Trump acknowledged that he was interested in receiving damaging information about Mrs. Clinton, but gave no indication that he thought the lawyer might have been a Kremlin proxy.

Mr. Goldstone’s message, as described to The New York Times by the three people, indicates that the Russian government was the source of the potentially damaging information. It does not elaborate on the wider effort by Moscow to help the Trump campaign. There is no evidence to suggest that the promised damaging information was related to Russian government computer hacking that led to the release of thousands of Democratic National Committee emails.

But the email is likely to be of keen interest to the Justice Department and congressional investigators, who are examining whether any of President Trump’s associates colluded with the Russian government to disrupt last year’s election. American intelligence agencies have determined that the Russian government attempted to sway the election in favor of Mr. Trump.

They will know that we stand together': US Commander in apparent reference to ChinaUnperturbed by Beijing's protests and what can be seen as an attempt to check China's aggressive posturing in the region, navies of US, Japan and India are carrying out the Malabar Naval Exercise-2017, which began on Monday.Aimed at strengthening the military ties between the three nations, the exercise will see participation of 16 ships, two submarines and more than 95 aircraft. An Indian Navy statement said that the exercise will go a long way in strengthening mutual confidence and inter-operability as well as sharing of best practices between the Indian, Japanese and US Navies. In an apparent reference to China, TOI quoted a US commander as saying that the exercise would have a significant impact on India's eastern neighbour. "They will know that we are standing together and that it is better to stand together," TOI quoted the US commander as saying. .....

WASHINGTON: The US House of Representatives has passed a USD 621.5 billion defence policy bill that proposes to advance defence cooperation with India.

An amendment in this regard, moved by Indian-American Congressman Ami Bera, was adopted by a voice vote by the House as part of the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA) 2018, beginning October 1 this year. NDAA-2018 was passed by the House 344-81

Looks like ddmitis, the 621.5 $B is the whole bill for US needs, the India component is pretty limited., nevertheless its good.

SEC. 12l. STRATEGY TO FURTHER UNITED STATES-INDIA DEFENSECOOPERATION.(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of theenactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in consultationwith the Secretary of State, shall develop a strategy for advancingdefense cooperation between the United States and India.(b) ELEMENTS.—The strategy shall address the following:(1) Common security challenges.(2) The role of United States partners and allies in theUnited States-India defense relationship.(3) The role of the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative.(4) How to advance the Communications Interoperability andSecurity Memorandum of Agreement and the Basic Exchangeand Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Cooperation.(5) Any other matters the Secretary of Defense or the Secretaryof State determines to be appropriate.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/622 ... -well.html'India, US bureaucracies not well-aligned on issue of defence trade'he trajectory of Indo-US defence ties is "incredibly positive" but the bureaucracies in the two countries are not "well-aligned" on the issue of defence trade, a senior US defence official has said.Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for South and Southeast Asia Cara Abercrombie said that India and US need to work together to ensure the acquisition policies do not unfairly disqualify American companies while meeting India's interests.Abercrombie noted that while the India-US defence relation trajectory is "incredibly positive" and the two nations have just "scratched the surface" of the potential of defence and security and there is still work to be done......"Fundamentally when it comes to defence trade, our bureaucracies are not well aligned. The US defence export system evolved over many decades during the Cold War. The Indian system is looking at itself now as a major major arms importer and a major major defence capabilities developer in its own right," she said.Abercrombie added that India is naturally thinking that as a buyer it gets to set the rules, a thinking that is "fundamentally" different from US export rules."So we are carefully working through this," she said, adding that the two nations have established the Defence Trade and Technology Initiative to look at ways to "align our bureaucracies to overcome that because at the end of the day we do want to cooperate and do not want these things to act as an impediment and inadvertently undermine our ability to cooperate together".She also stressed that in its desire to work together in areas of security and stability, the US would like to see the Indian government working with it "in partnership to ensure that the acquisition policies don't disadvantage US companies just because we cannot get the lowest price or because we are so transparent we give you the full price for the next 30 years and it looks appallingly high or the tech transfer looks a little bit too challenging".She said the US would like to be able to "sit down at the front end and ensure that the acquisition process is fair and meets India’s intent and interests but does not unfairly disqualify or disadvantage (US) companies"......

India used to purchase from the USSR at friendship prices, which meant at lower than market prices. USA will also sell at friendship prices, but it will mean higher than market prices. Indian Babus have to forget their old habit and learn not to set the rules, and above all buy from the US companies even though not at the lowest prices. In this business with the US as the seller will set the rules. If this is done, we can cooperate.Gautam

The Indian Army has also announced plans to acquire 145 guns for ₹30 billion (US$466 million),[42] but purchase plans were overtaken when the procurement process was restarted in July 2010. India's Ministry of Defence cleared the proposal for buying 145 guns for US$660 million on 11 May 2012 through the US Government's Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process.[43] This was put up before the Ministry of Finance for clearance and will subsequently be taken up by the Cabinet Committee on Security for final approval.[44][45] On 2 August 2013, India requested the sale of 145 M777 howitzers for US$885 million.[46] On 24 February 2014 the purchase was again postponed.[47] On 11 May 2014 the purchase was cleared by India's Defence ministry.[48] On 11 July 2014, the Government of India announced that it would not order the guns because of cost issues.[49] On 22 November 2014, the selection process was restarted under the "Make In India" program.[50] On 13 May 2015, The defence ministry approved ₹2,900 crore to buy 145 M777 ultralight howitzers from the US.[51] On 15 December 2015, the Indian Ministry of Defence said it was keen on placing a follow-up order of 500 more M777 guns.[52]

On 26 June 2016, it was announced that 145 guns will be purchased by India for US$750 million.[53] On 30 November 2016 Indian government completed the deal to buy 145 howitzers from the US.[54] The deal was completed in December 2016.[55] Indian Army received 1st batch of two M777 howitzers on 18 May 2017.[56]

India received its first shipment comprising 2 Howitzers on 18 May 2017 in New Delhi from United States in ready to use condition.[57]

ramana wrote:G.Sarkar look at the BAE M-777 deal.In 2010 the deal cost was $450MIn 2016 when it was signed it cost almost1.6 that.

Ref in case some one jumps up and says proof!!!

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable reference and for good reason. No better example than the excerpt you've quoted. Whoever has edited that paragraph took the then rupee value (Rs 3,000 crore) of the contract and divided it by the current dollar exchange rate ($1=Rs 65) instead of the 2010 exchange rate ($1=Rs 45).

You should have gone to the actual newpiece referenced in that quote (#42). Which is this one -